Beauty and the Beast 2017
Before walking into my screening of Beauty and the Beast, it was my goal to write a review that resisted constantly comparing it with the animated film from which it is adapted. It doesn’t seem entirely fair to me to critique a film based on what it lacks in comparison to another film than to simply examine what it is on its own.
That lofty goal will not be realized in this review, and not just because the film is bad. It is because the movie itself cannot resist constantly comparing itself to that cinematic masterpiece. From word for word reenactments of countless scenes to copying and pasting Alan Menken’s score as we first heard it in 1991, this remake rarely attempts to find an individual voice. When it does it is merely bloated and gratuitous.
I feel I need make no attempt to describe the plot, since it is embedded in our cultural conscience. The film telegraphs this point by narrating story points word for word from the animated film, oftentimes with different visual approaches undertaken in ’91. Unfortunately, these choices serve only to differentiate it from the cartoon and never make a more interesting approach to the material.
This pattern of attempted separation repeats as the classic musical numbers play to enthusiastic audience members who may fail to realize that the main reason the song is working is because it is note-for-note the same one that wowed audiences over twenty-five years ago. Granted, there are several new songs, very few of which are terrible but all of which fail to inspire. In all cases the choreography is usually wooden and bland and the camera does not seem sure how to make it all come alive visually.
While the movie boasts a beautiful color palette and assured production design, its visual language does not mesh in a way that improves upon the ’91 film. This is not an issue of nostalgia making me fiercely protective of a beloved film from my childhood (and thus my childhood itself). With any basic filmmaking handbook, I can objectively prove that the cartoon film, at every turn, utilizes cinematic techniques to tell its story visually in a far more compelling way than this live action movie.
Performances are stilted and unnatural; even the best of which peak at being serviceable to a story that is sleepwalking through itself. Emma Watson is sweet but does not dazzle as Belle (though her casting initially seemed inspired) and Dan Stevens’s turn as The Beast lacks much of the emotional pain necessary for the character.
Because we already know the story, its strong emotional beats are oftentimes sped through, making the characters far more two-dimensional in this adaptation. Much of this shouldn’t be entirely pinned on the performers, who seem to be doing what they can with material that goes nowhere interesting.
Luke Evans tries to have fun as narcissistic baddy Gaston, but is forced to meander through scheming plot points unnecessary to the story but shoved in to make it seem more complex. He’s lost much of the menacing edge he once held as the dark side of the classical Prince Charming. Josh Gad’s portrayal of Gaston’s sidekick Lefou has engendered controversial outrage over the choice to play him as homosexual. The true offense should be taken because this new element of the character is degradingly tame and uncomfortably cliched.
The worst element of the remake is that every addition to make the film seem new is achieved by making subtext from the animated film blatant. There is significantly less nuance, which makes its messages slightly more simple to digest textually but seldom challenges us on any narrative, philosophical, or emotional level.
The question at the heart of the film has always been “why does this exist?” The answer, of course, is so that Disney can print their own money (and why wouldn’t they?). But why have so many looked forward to it with gusto? I would theorize that it is because it hopes to harness the story for a new generation, or perhaps to make much of it new.
To speak to those points, the constant callbacks to the animated film, as well as the remake’s inability to break interesting new ground, prove that there was hardly anything to fix or update. Attempts to fill in plot holes from the ’91 film are unimaginative and unnecessary. Added subplots feel like fat is being added to the framework of a much better film that attained its legendary status precisely because that fat was trimmed.
For all I hold against this remake of my all-time favorite animated film, I do not consider it a personal affront to my childhood or that movie. Few things can tarnish the reputation of a masterwork, least of all an uninspired imitation of it.
I feel not rage or hatred but disinterest and pity for this remake (though it won’t need it after the millions it pulls in). I pity it because it is so self-aware it cannot escape from the shadow of its predecessor on the levels of both legacy and cinematic technique.
It must be admitted that if the movie did exist in a vacuum where its predecessor was never released, it would be well received. This is because, thanks to its composition as a facsimile, if it occupied a timeline where it didn’t follow the ’91 film, it would be the ’91 film.
If the argument for this film’s existence is that it was time we got to see this story on the big screen again, I would contend that a re-release of the animated masterpiece would be a hundred times more effective.
